1) Confessing to a crime that you didn’t commit to avoid punishment is incredibly ridiculous, in my opinion. If one confesses to a crime to avoid punishment, one’s life could be made into a living hell by a series of other consequences. For example, if one is accused of a crime and pleads guilty to avoid a harsh sentence, one will have to live with the reputation as a criminal. People would hate that person and cut ties with him or her. One would not be able to get a good job because one is labeled a criminal. One would probably be alone and despised for the rest of one’s life, and one did not even commit the crime! This is a situation where one simply cannot win. Damned if you do, and damned if you do not. If one is punished for not admitting guilt because he or she is innocent, at least he or she will suffer (or even die) with some amount of dignity. If both situations end in being punished, one must consider which punishment is preferable: getting away with your life (and consequently suffering for the remainder of it), or be punished for not confessing and at least die with a clear conscience. I, personally, consider falsely confessing to escape punishment cowardly, and in the end, one would either suffer as much as one would have from the sentencing, if not suffer more. Also, there are other consequences that would not effect the accused, but would probably harm others. For example, let us say one was being accused of murder and was offered a deal that would allow him to escape sentencing if only he or she would confess. If one accepts the deal, the actual murderer is still out there and could hurt others.
2) The difference between right and wrong is not always clear. Not everyone has the same sense of right and wrong. Some people believe eating pork is a sin, and others will eat bacon to their hearts’ content. Some people worship statues, and others believe that is the sin of idolatry. There is also the question of who or what determines right and wrong. Is it the law of man? Is it the law of God? Is there even right and wrong, or are there only consequences, as some say? Some of man’s laws are frowned upon in the Bible, and some of man’s laws do not even take biblical law into consideration because some consider it to be “obsolete.” However, it could be argued that many of man’s laws have been based on the laws of the Bible. For example, most of the population still abides by “Thou shall not kill” and “Thou shall not steal.” However, some people disregard “Thou shall not commit idolatry,” “Thou shall not commit adultery,” and “Thou must keep the Sabbath day holy” as morally correct. Though many people might share some morals, everyone has different definitions of what is right and what is wrong. What is right and what is wrong is barely ever black and white. There are exceptions to every rule. For example, murder is wrong, but it is okay if it was committed in self-defense. Another example is: stealing is bad, but it might be considered acceptable if it is to provide for one’s poor family. Because there are so many exceptions and loopholes, what is considered morally right or wrong can differ among individuals. In fact, what could be considered a sin in one religion could be seen as a good deed in another. The same goes for different countries.
3) I am not sure whether I agree with this statement or not. I suppose it depends on the circumstances. If I had to choose between dying or lying about my faith, I would have to choose dying for what I believe in. At least I would be considered courageous and a martyr for my faith. I would not die for the right to ride bicycles on the sidewalk, even though I do believe in it. That is rather silly. It depends on the circumstances, the context, and whether the belief is important enough to die for or not. I would die for human rights, and I would die to prevent others from dying, but I would not die for a trivial belief. It is not necessary. If the consequences of lying about a minor belief are not that bad, I would lie to save my life. If I were to die for something small, I would probably die in vain. It would be a waste of a human life over something unimportant, and that in itself is much more horrific than lying. Lying regarding a belief is not something I would be happy about, even if it was small. However, if it was to save my life, I would lie. Something always has to give. We all must make sacrifices from time to time, and if the sacrifice is not being truthful regarding an unimportant belief to be able to continue to live, it would not be that big of a sacrifice. However, what determines how important a belief is to someone? Something that seems small to me might be very important to someone else, and vice versa. How do I weigh which of my own beliefs are more or less important than others?
4) There are many ways to interpret the Bible. People interpret it differently because no two people are the same nor think the same way. I suppose that is why there are so many sects of Judaism and Christianity, like Orthodox Jews, Messianic Jews, Hassidic Jews, Jewish Renewals (practitioners of kabala), Reformed Jews, Secular Humanist Jews, etc. Examples of different Christian sects are: Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, etc. There have even been entirely different religions based on disagreements regarding Bible interpretation, like the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some people believe everything in the Bible is literal, while others believe it is only metaphorical and full of symbolism. Others believe it is merely a storybook. I believe that some parts are literal and some parts are symbolic. I believe that the story of Noah’s ark really happened. I believe that some parts of the book of Revelation are metaphorical. Some people still eat with kosher dietary restrictions, prevent fabrics from intermingling, and separate themselves by gender in churches or synagogues. Others believe that those old laws do not apply anymore. Some parts of the Bible are unclear and are open to interpretation. Other parts are very clear and can only be interpreted in one way. Even then, some people attempt to interpret clear passages in different ways to suit their desires. This is sinful in that no passage should be manipulated into being what one wants it to be so one could live one’s life however he or she desires. In that case, one should abandon the Bible entirely because he or she does not really want to live according to it, but instead mold it to fit his or her needs. However, interpreting a passage differently because it is what one truly believes is not the same thing.
5) That which doesn’t destroy us does indeed make us stronger. Whether it is a physical injury or ailment, psychological damage, or spiritual turmoil, the body, mind, and soul are strengthened from the experience if not destroyed by it. The body builds antibodies to fight against an infection if it ever returns. The body produces calluses and scars to protect tissue. The mind produces coping mechanisms and learns lessons from past experiences and mistakes. The soul can be made stronger, too, through spiritual beliefs. More exposure to bacteria and viruses improve the immune system. A saddening experience could prepare you for another one later in life. It might be an old saying, “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.” However, I believe it is generally true. However, one could argue that there are sicknesses that people survive, but are left debilitated. The same goes for injuries like losing limbs or other extremities. One cannot grow those back, unless he or she is a lizard. Someone could survive a mental breakdown and lose some ability to function normally. Sometimes people cannot bounce back. For the most part, however, the rule applies. It even shows in nature: plants and animals adapt to their environments. Sometimes, humans are forced to adapt, too. It does not have to be physical adaptation. All that’s necessary for adaptation is to either grow or lose a trait so one can survive. That means that some suffering must occur, right? In the end, the species is made stronger from those who did not perish. Therefore, sometimes humans develop new traits and abandon old ones because of an experience that did not destroy them. For example, if you lose a grandparent as a child, you might be able to handle the death of a loved one better as an adult because you have already experienced it and know what to expect.
6) It is more difficult to forgive yourself if the person you hurt does not forgive you because you would not feel like you have the right or permission to forgive yourself. If the person you harmed has not forgiven you, it is likely that you will witness the suffering it has caused that person, such as crying, fits of rage, or withdrawal from a relationship with you (if you had one in the first place). Obviously, seeing those things will make you feel even guiltier (if you are a normal, decent human being), and you will feel like you do not deserve forgiveness. Constantly being reminded of what you did wrong will make the healing process more difficult, but not impossible. The fact is, apologizing and asking for forgiveness is crucial in helping the person you wronged feel better. However, if the victim does not want to forgive you, that is not your problem. If you genuinely apologized and tried to do everything possible to make things right, there is nothing more you can do to persuade that person. The only person you are responsible for is yourself. If you did all you could to repair the situation, you have done your job. There is no use carrying around guilt all the time if you truly repent and attempt to fix the problem. You must simply own what you did, repent, and not do it again. That is how you forgive yourself. You do not need the victim’s forgiveness in order for you to forgive yourself. It is a nice bonus, yes. It will make it easier to forgive yourself, and it will make you feel better, but it is not essential. And if you can forgive yourself without repenting and attempting to fix the situation, you are merely a jerk and truly do not deserve forgiveness from anyone.
7) Courage means doing something despite it being difficult or fearsome. Courage and fearlessness are not the same thing. In fact, fearlessness often leads to stupidity because there is no caution. Fear was designed so that we would not do something that would get ourselves killed, like jumping off a cliff into pointy rocks, or tickling a sleeping bear. That’s why the line between fearlessness and stupidity is so thin: one usually leads to another. However, courage is doing something in spite of the fact that you are scared or know you will have a hard time. That is what makes it so admirable. That is why being courageous is better than being fearless. If one is fearless, then doing something people perceive as scary would come easily to them, and it would not be all that impressive. But the fact that someone could overcome his or her human emotions that can be crippling to do what is necessary is extremely noble. Being afraid is natural and human. It is to be expected. Being afraid is not bad, and one should not be ashamed of fear. It is built into the very fiber of our being in order to protect ourselves and others from harm. However, to conquer fear is an act that is associated with great heroes and martyrs because it is an uncommon feat. And even working with one’s fear to do something can be considered courage. It can make one cautious, wary, and wiser. However, if it gets out of hand, it is utterly useless and will probably get you killed. Too little fear could get you killed, and too much fear could have the same result, unfortunately. Basically, having the right amount of fear is healthy, but doing something in spite of it is extraordinary.
8) I do not know whether a person is innocent until proven guilty or not because nothing has been proven yet. In fact, I think that one’s mind should be open to both options. If one immediately takes the stance that someone is innocent and must be proven guilty, evidence that the person is guilty will be difficult to swallow and might not even register because the mindset may be fixed. And sometimes, it is better to be considered guilty until proven innocent. In a case in which a child is harmed, for example, one must be guilty until proven innocent as to protect the child at all costs from a predator. If the accused party is innocent, then no real harm has been done. If the accused is guilty, all precautions were taken to protect and defend the child, thus not giving the predator the opportunity to strike again from being given the “benefit of the doubt.” Of course, this does not benefit the accused, this “guilty until proven innocent” idea. However, it protects victims from further harm. The concept of being innocent until proven guilty is solely the right of the accused, but the state attorney does not get any rights. The state attorney has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty, and the defense attorney just has to find ways of shooting the accusations down. If the accused could just be looked at with an open mind instead of “innocent until proven guilty,” maybe the court system would work a little better. Notice that I want proof. I do not want anyone to just assume someone is guilty. Proof is necessary to make things fair and balanced. It would be better if the accused was neither seen as innocent nor guilty until it is proven.
9) Beliefs in opposition to common values should not be illegal. They should not be illegal because everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. Society does not have the right to be policing what everyone else believes.
10) Justice is not always best determined in a court of law because someone who is convicted of a crime yet was completely innocent could be sentenced to jail or worse. So many innocent people have gotten the death penalty because of faulty evidence or a shabby investigation. The opposite is also true. If a person who is guilty of a crime is set free, then that person was judged incorrectly. Many guilty people have been released, only to commit more crimes and hurt more lives. Also, the members of the court, like the judge, attorneys, and people of the jury, could also be corrupt and crooked. And even when someone guilty is convicted, sometimes the punishments are too harsh or not harsh enough for the crime that was committed. A lot of times, the court is too gentle on guilty people. I understand they have rights, but where’s the justice? What happened to “An eye for an eye?” There are a lot of things wrong with the court system, in my opinion. For instance, in modern times, trials take forever. However, I am not sure how to better it, nor am I aware of an alternative way to get justice. I do not believe in vigilante justice. That can go very wrong, even though Batman does not really seem to get in trouble for it. Seriously, I do not want people out in the streets killing people because they think they are doing something wrong. I just wish that the court could be modified, but I do not want it to be eliminated.
2) The difference between right and wrong is not always clear. Not everyone has the same sense of right and wrong. Some people believe eating pork is a sin, and others will eat bacon to their hearts’ content. Some people worship statues, and others believe that is the sin of idolatry. There is also the question of who or what determines right and wrong. Is it the law of man? Is it the law of God? Is there even right and wrong, or are there only consequences, as some say? Some of man’s laws are frowned upon in the Bible, and some of man’s laws do not even take biblical law into consideration because some consider it to be “obsolete.” However, it could be argued that many of man’s laws have been based on the laws of the Bible. For example, most of the population still abides by “Thou shall not kill” and “Thou shall not steal.” However, some people disregard “Thou shall not commit idolatry,” “Thou shall not commit adultery,” and “Thou must keep the Sabbath day holy” as morally correct. Though many people might share some morals, everyone has different definitions of what is right and what is wrong. What is right and what is wrong is barely ever black and white. There are exceptions to every rule. For example, murder is wrong, but it is okay if it was committed in self-defense. Another example is: stealing is bad, but it might be considered acceptable if it is to provide for one’s poor family. Because there are so many exceptions and loopholes, what is considered morally right or wrong can differ among individuals. In fact, what could be considered a sin in one religion could be seen as a good deed in another. The same goes for different countries.
3) I am not sure whether I agree with this statement or not. I suppose it depends on the circumstances. If I had to choose between dying or lying about my faith, I would have to choose dying for what I believe in. At least I would be considered courageous and a martyr for my faith. I would not die for the right to ride bicycles on the sidewalk, even though I do believe in it. That is rather silly. It depends on the circumstances, the context, and whether the belief is important enough to die for or not. I would die for human rights, and I would die to prevent others from dying, but I would not die for a trivial belief. It is not necessary. If the consequences of lying about a minor belief are not that bad, I would lie to save my life. If I were to die for something small, I would probably die in vain. It would be a waste of a human life over something unimportant, and that in itself is much more horrific than lying. Lying regarding a belief is not something I would be happy about, even if it was small. However, if it was to save my life, I would lie. Something always has to give. We all must make sacrifices from time to time, and if the sacrifice is not being truthful regarding an unimportant belief to be able to continue to live, it would not be that big of a sacrifice. However, what determines how important a belief is to someone? Something that seems small to me might be very important to someone else, and vice versa. How do I weigh which of my own beliefs are more or less important than others?
4) There are many ways to interpret the Bible. People interpret it differently because no two people are the same nor think the same way. I suppose that is why there are so many sects of Judaism and Christianity, like Orthodox Jews, Messianic Jews, Hassidic Jews, Jewish Renewals (practitioners of kabala), Reformed Jews, Secular Humanist Jews, etc. Examples of different Christian sects are: Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, etc. There have even been entirely different religions based on disagreements regarding Bible interpretation, like the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some people believe everything in the Bible is literal, while others believe it is only metaphorical and full of symbolism. Others believe it is merely a storybook. I believe that some parts are literal and some parts are symbolic. I believe that the story of Noah’s ark really happened. I believe that some parts of the book of Revelation are metaphorical. Some people still eat with kosher dietary restrictions, prevent fabrics from intermingling, and separate themselves by gender in churches or synagogues. Others believe that those old laws do not apply anymore. Some parts of the Bible are unclear and are open to interpretation. Other parts are very clear and can only be interpreted in one way. Even then, some people attempt to interpret clear passages in different ways to suit their desires. This is sinful in that no passage should be manipulated into being what one wants it to be so one could live one’s life however he or she desires. In that case, one should abandon the Bible entirely because he or she does not really want to live according to it, but instead mold it to fit his or her needs. However, interpreting a passage differently because it is what one truly believes is not the same thing.
5) That which doesn’t destroy us does indeed make us stronger. Whether it is a physical injury or ailment, psychological damage, or spiritual turmoil, the body, mind, and soul are strengthened from the experience if not destroyed by it. The body builds antibodies to fight against an infection if it ever returns. The body produces calluses and scars to protect tissue. The mind produces coping mechanisms and learns lessons from past experiences and mistakes. The soul can be made stronger, too, through spiritual beliefs. More exposure to bacteria and viruses improve the immune system. A saddening experience could prepare you for another one later in life. It might be an old saying, “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.” However, I believe it is generally true. However, one could argue that there are sicknesses that people survive, but are left debilitated. The same goes for injuries like losing limbs or other extremities. One cannot grow those back, unless he or she is a lizard. Someone could survive a mental breakdown and lose some ability to function normally. Sometimes people cannot bounce back. For the most part, however, the rule applies. It even shows in nature: plants and animals adapt to their environments. Sometimes, humans are forced to adapt, too. It does not have to be physical adaptation. All that’s necessary for adaptation is to either grow or lose a trait so one can survive. That means that some suffering must occur, right? In the end, the species is made stronger from those who did not perish. Therefore, sometimes humans develop new traits and abandon old ones because of an experience that did not destroy them. For example, if you lose a grandparent as a child, you might be able to handle the death of a loved one better as an adult because you have already experienced it and know what to expect.
6) It is more difficult to forgive yourself if the person you hurt does not forgive you because you would not feel like you have the right or permission to forgive yourself. If the person you harmed has not forgiven you, it is likely that you will witness the suffering it has caused that person, such as crying, fits of rage, or withdrawal from a relationship with you (if you had one in the first place). Obviously, seeing those things will make you feel even guiltier (if you are a normal, decent human being), and you will feel like you do not deserve forgiveness. Constantly being reminded of what you did wrong will make the healing process more difficult, but not impossible. The fact is, apologizing and asking for forgiveness is crucial in helping the person you wronged feel better. However, if the victim does not want to forgive you, that is not your problem. If you genuinely apologized and tried to do everything possible to make things right, there is nothing more you can do to persuade that person. The only person you are responsible for is yourself. If you did all you could to repair the situation, you have done your job. There is no use carrying around guilt all the time if you truly repent and attempt to fix the problem. You must simply own what you did, repent, and not do it again. That is how you forgive yourself. You do not need the victim’s forgiveness in order for you to forgive yourself. It is a nice bonus, yes. It will make it easier to forgive yourself, and it will make you feel better, but it is not essential. And if you can forgive yourself without repenting and attempting to fix the situation, you are merely a jerk and truly do not deserve forgiveness from anyone.
7) Courage means doing something despite it being difficult or fearsome. Courage and fearlessness are not the same thing. In fact, fearlessness often leads to stupidity because there is no caution. Fear was designed so that we would not do something that would get ourselves killed, like jumping off a cliff into pointy rocks, or tickling a sleeping bear. That’s why the line between fearlessness and stupidity is so thin: one usually leads to another. However, courage is doing something in spite of the fact that you are scared or know you will have a hard time. That is what makes it so admirable. That is why being courageous is better than being fearless. If one is fearless, then doing something people perceive as scary would come easily to them, and it would not be all that impressive. But the fact that someone could overcome his or her human emotions that can be crippling to do what is necessary is extremely noble. Being afraid is natural and human. It is to be expected. Being afraid is not bad, and one should not be ashamed of fear. It is built into the very fiber of our being in order to protect ourselves and others from harm. However, to conquer fear is an act that is associated with great heroes and martyrs because it is an uncommon feat. And even working with one’s fear to do something can be considered courage. It can make one cautious, wary, and wiser. However, if it gets out of hand, it is utterly useless and will probably get you killed. Too little fear could get you killed, and too much fear could have the same result, unfortunately. Basically, having the right amount of fear is healthy, but doing something in spite of it is extraordinary.
8) I do not know whether a person is innocent until proven guilty or not because nothing has been proven yet. In fact, I think that one’s mind should be open to both options. If one immediately takes the stance that someone is innocent and must be proven guilty, evidence that the person is guilty will be difficult to swallow and might not even register because the mindset may be fixed. And sometimes, it is better to be considered guilty until proven innocent. In a case in which a child is harmed, for example, one must be guilty until proven innocent as to protect the child at all costs from a predator. If the accused party is innocent, then no real harm has been done. If the accused is guilty, all precautions were taken to protect and defend the child, thus not giving the predator the opportunity to strike again from being given the “benefit of the doubt.” Of course, this does not benefit the accused, this “guilty until proven innocent” idea. However, it protects victims from further harm. The concept of being innocent until proven guilty is solely the right of the accused, but the state attorney does not get any rights. The state attorney has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty, and the defense attorney just has to find ways of shooting the accusations down. If the accused could just be looked at with an open mind instead of “innocent until proven guilty,” maybe the court system would work a little better. Notice that I want proof. I do not want anyone to just assume someone is guilty. Proof is necessary to make things fair and balanced. It would be better if the accused was neither seen as innocent nor guilty until it is proven.
9) Beliefs in opposition to common values should not be illegal. They should not be illegal because everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. Society does not have the right to be policing what everyone else believes.
10) Justice is not always best determined in a court of law because someone who is convicted of a crime yet was completely innocent could be sentenced to jail or worse. So many innocent people have gotten the death penalty because of faulty evidence or a shabby investigation. The opposite is also true. If a person who is guilty of a crime is set free, then that person was judged incorrectly. Many guilty people have been released, only to commit more crimes and hurt more lives. Also, the members of the court, like the judge, attorneys, and people of the jury, could also be corrupt and crooked. And even when someone guilty is convicted, sometimes the punishments are too harsh or not harsh enough for the crime that was committed. A lot of times, the court is too gentle on guilty people. I understand they have rights, but where’s the justice? What happened to “An eye for an eye?” There are a lot of things wrong with the court system, in my opinion. For instance, in modern times, trials take forever. However, I am not sure how to better it, nor am I aware of an alternative way to get justice. I do not believe in vigilante justice. That can go very wrong, even though Batman does not really seem to get in trouble for it. Seriously, I do not want people out in the streets killing people because they think they are doing something wrong. I just wish that the court could be modified, but I do not want it to be eliminated.